Gravitas Spark CrowdFunding

Tag: EIIS

  • Short Prompts, Longer Impacts….

    Short Prompts, Longer Impacts….

    That was exhausting. And it was only a short week. Iranian civilization and the White House insider trading desk were given a bit more time to exist under autocratic regimes while Schrödinger’s ceasefire broke out everywhere but in the Strait of Hormuz and Lebanon. This paradox seemed to inspire Melania Trump who went to the Presidential podium to assure the world’s press that Epstein criminality was not a hoax, but at the same time that she “never had a relationship” with dear Jeffrey.  I’m thinking that’s a “relations” denial but that’s the Clinton nostalgia in me. Anyway, this very strange First Lady intervention has prompted some very short-term thinking about what exact Epstein bombshell is about to drop. The longer term implications might take a bit longer to decipher but, at the bare minimum, Melania appears to be keeping an eye on the catastrophic GOP polling for the mid-term elections this November. In fact, there were a few other developments this week which prompted relatively light commentary levels but could have far weightier longer term impact. Let’s start with a prompt, but one of the AI variety…

    Anthropic is the parent of the chat bot Claude which recently fell out with the Pentagon. Well, it looks like Anthropic might have prompted one of their LLM chat bots (large language models) rather too well. The latest reports suggest a cousin of Claude (certainly not Greg), Mythos, could be a bigger threat to the planet than Agent Orange in the Oval Office. Yeah, seriously. Apparently, and this is the really simple language version….Mythos was tasked/prompted to find vulnerabilities in software and systems deployed by the world’s biggest institutions, banks, utilities and blue chip companies. Mythos didn’t come back with one or two “exploits” or ways to hack software, it came back with hundreds even thousands of ways to hack into software systems. Mythos was SO good, Anthropic has taken the immediate decision not to release the model to the public. That’s not all. Some very senior people have been spooked by Mythos. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell called the CEOs of America’s biggest and most important banks into a closed-door meeting this week at the Treasury building in Washington, D.C. Expect to hear a lot more about Mythos and wonder how long before Polymarket or Kalshi start running betting books on the probability of world destruction being at the hands of digital weapons rather than nuclear weapons. But if we stick with the nuclear threat…..

    Earlier in the week, CNBC’s Trump-cheering anchor, Joe Kernen, was destroyed by former Transport Secretary, Pete Buttigieg in a toe-curling TV clip which has gone viral. Kernen tried desperately to amplify Tehran’s imminent nuclear capabilities but struggled to deflect from the strategically disastrous consequences of the Iran war including the shutting down of the Strait of Hormuz. “Whataboutism” is about to hit peak volume in MAGA land to drown out the inevitable rise in prices, inflation and voter discontent in the “golden age” of the USA. Peace talks begin at the weekend in Islamabad but the longer term consequences of world fuel supplies being cut by 10-20% will be felt for months to come. As each day passes, the global economy will pay the price of minimal shipping traffic passing the Strait of Hormuz. Before the war, daily shipping traffic averaged 130 vessels. Currently, Schrödinger’s ceasefire is delivering a daily traffic total of…… 6-7 vessels. Not 67, six…or seven. No wonder Trump is panicking, and that’s before he even checks the latest polls and actual votes.

    Amid all the ceasefire headlines, US voters are beginning to shift sharply. In Georgia, former Trump lovey, Marjorie Taylor Green’s seat witnessed a 25 point voter move towards the Democrats. In another swing state, Wisconsin, politicised Supreme Court elections saw a 20 point shift to the Democrats. According to the election analysis publication, the Downballot, Democrats have improved upon their 2024 presidential election margins by an average of 11% in special elections so far in 2026 and roughly 13% since the start of 2025. Prediction markets, Kalshi and Polymarket, are giving Democrats 88% odds of House control and 53% for the Senate in November 2026. Meanwhile, closer to home, Hungary goes to the polls this weekend with the real possibility of Trump and Putin fanboy, Viktor Orban, being ousted from power. A particularly eye-rolling moment during the last week of the campaign was the the arrival of US Vice-President JD Vance to complain about EU interference in the election……while on a trip to Hungary to interfere in their election. The EU-US relationship has never looked so broken, and will take years to repair. Indeed, it’s increasingly clear from a European perspective that no senior US leader gets a pass for staying quiet during this insanity. It’s not the only upside-down shift in the world we used to know…

    The downturn in the performance of software stocks like SAP, Salesforce and Microsoft has been a feature of financial market commentary in recent months, spawning multiple SaaSpocalypse headlines. I’m not convinced the valuation meltdown of software under the threat of AI is fully merited. Current valuation multiples, price/earnings below 20x, are back at pre-Covid levels and below those of lower growth consumer staples stocks like Walmart. In fact, Walmart is currently trading at higher valuation multiples than Amazon. Clearly, longer-term prospects for software have currently shifted in investors’ minds but perhaps the bigger story is in hardware. The semiconductor sector (ETF $SOXX) has risen by 108% over the past year while the software sector (ETF $IGV) has declined by 14% over the same period. This scale of market performance divergence is unprecedented and is a reminder (if the Strait of Hormuz isn’t already) that the securing of the supply of physical assets (atoms, molecules) is becoming THE strategic business edge in the global tech race, and not digital code (bits).

    A final thought on performance, as Ireland’s government considers new tax frameworks and savings products to encourage households and businesses to take risk with circa €340 billion sitting in bank deposits. Of course, Spark (and our 60-strong stable of companies we have funded) have skin in this game so one hopes the government is mindful of the benefits of diversification across the entire investing spectrum. A narrow solution steering monies into already publicly listed (and funded) companies would be a missed opportunity to drive investment into our capital starved start-up and SME sectors. Oh, and the investment returns in private assets are certainly worth investigation. Our own EIIS Private Portfolio service launched just over two years ago has funded 24 companies to date. Current valuations and funding milestones/marks indicate an estimated (average) performance by the entire portfolio of somewhere near 25%. Steady stuff, and early yet as these companies are just 2 years into their scaling up journey. However, there is one other BIG factor to consider. The EIIS tax rebate scheme does work, and all Spark investors have been receiving their tax rebates. Now, here’s the interesting twist. That return of cash completely changes the returns profile of the portfolio above. The average return  to investors (if you had invested in all 24 companies) is actually over 100%. In just 2 years, and that’s mostly cash, not just paper. Expect us to write lots more on this very soon.

    Let’s call that a little prompt, with a very big long-term impact.

  • Time To Look At The Big Savings Picture

    Time To Look At The Big Savings Picture

    As Artemis II hurtles towards a lunar orbit we are reminded of how distance can give us new perspectives on our little planet. So too for time and our savings habits. Funnily enough, those perspectives are more reminders than new lessons. And, it’s definitely a good week for reminders. Top prize for memory-jogging was the Reform UK’s housing spokesperson, Simon Dudley, whose outstanding contribution to post-Grenfell safety debate was that “everyone dies in the end” while attacking current safety regulations. Thus ended Dudley’s 23-day reign as Reform housing guru –  even Igor Tudor’s stint at Spurs was 44 days. Of course, on a bigger stage, Pam Bondi learned a very old lesson this week that in a lawless society, the shelf-life of an Attorney General is limited no matter how good the cosmetic surgery. Let’s not go there with ex “ICE Barbie”, Kirsti Noem, except to say that these evangelical-political types really do have the most astonishing fetishes hidden in those bible-stacked closets. Poor Cricket clearly knew too much. Now, let’s take a look at areas of investment where we might need to know a bit more.

    In the week of Ireland’s first Savings & Investment Forum, we must applaud any efforts to put our savings capital to better use. The critical impetus is to move from a ‘savings’ no-risk culture to an investment wealth-creation culture. However, I’m personally concerned the investment options in new tax and incentive frameworks might be quite narrow. So, as luck would have it, the most striking thing I read this week highlights the dangers of a relatively ‘narrow’ approach to investment. Credit to Ben Carlson of A Wealth of Common Sense for highlighting the updated findings of Hendrick Bessembinder’s work. If that name sounds familiar it’s because we quote Bessembinder’s work extensively in our EIIS Private Portfolio brochure and newsletters. The Professor of Finance at Arizona State University in a 2018 research paper made a very powerful case for diversification, or a ‘portfolio approach’ to investing. His view, and mine, is that ‘picking winners’ is beyond the capability of all but a handful of people on the planet. Hence, my encouragement to build multi-year portfolios. His research covering S&P 500 stock returns since 1926 flagged two key features of investing:

     

    **60% of all stocks underperform risk-free government bonds(Treasuries).

    **Only a tiny 4% of the entire stock market’s securities (company shares) account for the vast majority of investor gains.

     

    The enormous concentration of performance in just a few stocks is strong justification for just buying ‘the market’ or indexing. Think about the Magnificent 7 or MANGO stocks these days and the ‘cost’ of not being invested in a single name like Nvidia (350,000 % outperformance since 1999). Now, let’s take a look at Bessembinder’s latest updated research with a full 100 years of data in the analysis. The inclusion of an extra 10 years of data shows that concentration of performance has accelerated into an even smaller pool of stocks:

     

    “Over the 1926 to 2016 period studied in Bessembinder (2018), 89 firms accounted for half of the $43 trillion in net wealth creation. After including outcomes for the most recent nine years, just 46 firms account for half of the $91 trillion in net wealth creation over the full century.”

     

    Wowzers! $45 trillion of wealth generated by just 46 companies accounts for more than half of ALL returns over time. However, I want to concentrate on the almost 60% of stocks who don’t even beat cash/Treaury bonds. That’s not a figure which helps the marketing departments of private client stockbrokers or active fund managers. But….. it does help those of us who are trying to increase investment in private assets including venture capital, private equity and infrastructure projects. You might wonder why, given it seems to ‘prove’ that investing can result in many companies failing to beat cash – at last count there’s more than €340 billion in Irish bank accounts. Well, one of the most common rebuttal arguments of investing in young venture capital type opportunities is that “most companies fail”.  Now check out that figure from the PUBLIC markets. Yes, 60% of those publicly listed companies fail to beat cash in performance terms. So, here’s the mindset change required for investing in private markets – many of the investments won’t better cash but it’s worth it if you can just find a few winners in your portfolio. Furthermore, that should not merit a guffaw from a professional advisor that those winners are too rare to justify investing in the asset class. Repeat slowly back to him/her that 46 companies over 100 years delivered half of ALL returns in the S&P 500. This week we also received a reminder of what private markets can deliver for early stage investors.

    SpaceX has filed paperwork to IPO in June. The plan is to raise $75 billion of new money at a valuation of….. $2 trillion. For historical context, please note that the previous global record IPO was Saudi Aramco which raised $29 billion in 2019. In 2025 the entire US capital markets raised a total of $44 billion across 202 IPO listings. For the valuation curious, SpaceX looks like it’s hoping to raise money at circa 100x this year’s revenues. I think the big picture pointer here is that private asset ‘winners’ can generate an outsized proportion of your overall investment returns while the majority will destroy wealth/purchasing power. However, the big learning reminder today is that this outcome is not much different to what happens in those orderly, liquid, mature public markets.

    Hopefully, Europe and Ireland will grasp that lesson and understand that diversification should not stop at publicly listed investments. Each asset class has its own risks but the bigger picture doesn’t look too different, be it public or private assets. FORTY SIX companies tell that 100 year old story. Now, Europe must think about how it can fund its own SpaceX and mobilise the €14 trillion of European household savings sitting in wealth destructive low-yield bank accounts. Yep, FOURTEEN TRILLION. It seems apt as we look to the skies and the possible this week, that Artemis is both the Greek goddess of hunting….and transitions.

  • Shunning Risk Not Making It EIISy For Europe…

    Shunning Risk Not Making It EIISy For Europe…

    Finally, somebody called it. Poland has a Donald as President too but he seems less enthralled by criminal heads of state. Donald Tusk’s view on the latest Trump ‘peace’ plan for Ukraine was quite  the zinger – “it would be good to know for sure who is the author of the plan and where was it created”. Answers on a postcard to the Kremlin. Sadly, Europe’s leaders have been generally slow to call out Agent Orange’s craven need to be Putin’s fluffer. Indeed, this risk aversion by Europe is not confined to geopolitics.  Mario Draghi has given a blunt assessment of progress made by Europe since his high profile EU Competitiveness Report last year.

    Draghi is unhappy about the slow pace of investment in innovation and the mobilisation of capital to scale the growth of Europe’s young companies. Worryingly, his initial estimate of innovation investment required of €800 billion has now jumped to €1.2 trillion as other economic regions accelerate their efforts to lead in healthcare, electrification, renewable energy and AI. Draghi’s words make for uncomfortable reading and go so far as to link this lack of risk courage to the existential threat to Ukraine and European sovereignty:

     

    “One year on, Europe is therefore in a harder place. Our growth model is fading. Vulnerabilities are mounting. And there is no clear path to finance the investments we need. We’ve been reminded painfully that inaction threatens not only our competitiveness, but also our sovereignty,”

     

    Inaction. Sounds familiar closer to home too. At our recent re-branding event for Spark Venture Funding, Fintan O’Toole in his guest address highlighted Ireland’s failings in housing, healthcare, infrastructure and SME support and identified a key contributing factor. Typically, Fintan did not mince his words. Citing the €150 billion or more of cash sitting in non-interest earning deposit accounts, he viewed this as symptomatic of a nation which “is afraid of risk”. The scars of the relatively recent Troika bail-out run deep but Mario Draghi is clearly saying the risks of inaction are far far worse. On a more positive note, we should remind ourselves of what can happen if investment bravery recovers again. In just the last 7 days, the European tech sector has been grabbing an unusually large share of the global financial headlines. Check out the following:

    *Revolut completes a funding round including an investment from Nvidia at a $75 billion valuation. Last year the valuation was $45 billion.

    *Lovable, the AI powered coding and developer platform, has reached annual recurring revenues (ARR) of $200 million and is raising money at a $6.3 billion valuation.

    *Energy play, Fuse Energy, founded by Revolut alumni is raising money at a $5 billion valuation just 5 months after reaching ‘unicorn’ status ($1 billion). Again ARR acceleration has been stunning, moving from $100m to $300m of recurring revenues within months.

    *Second-hand fashion market platform, Vinted, has reached the $1 billion revenue mark and is reported to be looking at a valuation close to $8 billion.

    *Quantum Drones is also raising at a $3 billion valuation while payments player, Flatpay, has just raised funds at a $1.7 billion valuation.

    All good in the ‘hood. But…here’s the really good bit. The geographic spread of these companies is pan-European with Sweden, UK, Lithuania, Germany and Denmark all represented.

    In Ireland there are many young companies with the potential to join these headlines. Returning to the embarrassing €150 billion pool of funds sitting in Irish deposit accounts doing nothing, it cannot be overstated how big an impact could be made if even 10% of that money was used in risk appropriate manner. To be clear, riskier investments should form an essential but much smaller portion of any savings/investment portfolio. We are not talking about 30-50% asset allocations. Depending on age profiles and existing risk budgets, a 5-15% allocation to innovation and young companies should be considered. And, don’t forget we are in EIIS “season”. Investments in EIIS-eligible companies can bring tax rebates (and risk reductions) of 35-50%. It is amazing how many people are unaware of this excellent government scheme used to scale young businesses, create employment and enter new markets. From this writer’s perspective, we are in a global race. Spark Private’s own portfolio of deal opportunities currently open for investment are race leaders and can deliver exciting and diversified exposures to multiple high-growth markets.

    Europe and Ireland urgently need to shake off their fears of risk. Frankly, Draghi is right: the risk of inaction could now be fatal for our economies and sovereignty. Think about that bank deposit shift, the EIIS de-risking opportunity and the speed of growth and wealth creation now possible in a global innovation economy growing at warp speed. There’s a ready-made EIIS portfolio available to curious investors which can help drive leadership and innovation in medical devices, digital currencies, e-transport, logistics infrastructure, AI and fintech. It’s worth taking a look and then considering the risk-reward of Moby, Social Voice, Quadrant, OOHPod, Nazare Point or Ostoform featuring in headlines like the ones above in just a few years from now.

     

  • Private Portfolios And Future Returns: Part II

    Private Portfolios And Future Returns: Part II

    Well, we promised. This is a follow-up to our last piece on expected returns for a private portfolio. This time we are going to illustrate a variety of portfolio outcomes with some numbers. However, there IS a catch. Humans are not good at forecasting the future so these returns outcomes are just a guide. A bit like a US-NATO promise to Estonia – we might send military forces to fight off an attack from Russia, but then again we might not. The good news for investors (for Estonia not so much) is that history can provide some confidence but no guarantees. History, in this instance, is the long-run return on private assets which we referenced in last week’s article. As a refresher, here is the reference table we used (Source: Pitchbook):

     

    We noted the various categories of assets and concluded that Spark investors would be mostly invested in private equity and venture capital type assets. Then we decided to use 12% as a conservative ‘base case’  annual growth hurdle (IRR) expected of a portfolio with that mix of assets and quantified that growth over 10 years:

     

    “In real terms (and compounding those rates [12%] of return) that equates to an initial investment of €10,000 growing to €31,000 over 10 years. For context, a fund with publicly listed equities would be expected (by financial planners) to generate 7% returns per annum and thus turn €10,000 into €19,600” 

     

    However, many of the Spark investment opportunities are very early-stage (higher risk) so it would be reasonable to expect something in excess of this 12% base case growth/returns scenario. Rather than use another headline number, we thought this article would be an opportunity to build a returns scenario from the bottom up. In other words, we would use illustrative portfolios of 25 investments each and explore three different mixes of outcomes. Our reasoning for using a portfolio of 25 investments is that this approximates to what many of our Private Portfolio (service) investors are currently trying to target/build as a personal portfolio over three years. The other assumptions used across the different illustrative portfolios are as follows:

     

    Total investment cost = €50,000

    Position size = €2,000 equally invested across 25 companies

    EIIS tax rebate rate = 37%* 

    Holding period = 10 years

     

    *The EIIS tax rebate rate is a ‘blend’ of the new standard rate of 35% and the higher rate of 50% applied to pre-operational businesses.

    Now, let’s consider our first portfolio. According to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, 65% of start-ups go out of business within 10 years. So let’s use that historic 65% failure rate as a future outcome for our first portfolio. In other words, 16 of our 25 portfolio companies will end up being worth zero. With the remaining 9 companies, we are going to assume that 5 of them become unspectacularly profitable and grind out a typical equity return of doubling every ten years(7% per annum). The final 4 companies are expected to be successful exits or ‘wins’ generating returns of between 7x and 15x. The table below illustrates those outcomes with an overall portfolio rate of return (IRR) of just over 13%. This equates to a multiple of 3.4x of the initial investment cost MINUS your EIIS tax rebate.

    Portfolio 1:

     

    The above example shows how important tax is to the initial cost or valuation multiple paid for your investments ie a 50% tax rebate cuts in half the valuation multiple paid. This portfolio generates a respectable 13% return but in the next example we’d like to demonstrate the importance of “winners”. So, in Portfolio 2 we raise the failure rate to 20 companies (80%) and model the impact of two big exits of 20x and 40x. This scenario delivers a superior IRR (vs Portfolio 1) of 15.4% and a multiple of 4.2x your initial cost of investment:

    Portfolio 2:

     

    Clearly, a return of 40x on a single investment would be huge but for ‘unicorn’ followers of companies reaching billion dollar valuation status this is the equivalent of a €25m company growing to €1 billion. Rare, but increasingly possible given the research team at Dealroom estimate 100 ‘unicorns’ have entered the billion dollar club every year since 2018. However, if the mention of unicorns smacks of fantasy territory let’s look at a more ‘diversified’ mix of outcomes in a portfolio. In particular, we want to model a portfolio reflecting some of the themes (including Spark’s risk management process) we touched upon in our first article of this series. Portfolio 3 is a mix of the following themes:

     

    Recovery: Failure of ‘asset lite’ businesses could actually deliver some recovery values due to the data base built, team domain expertise, customer relationship assets etc.

     

    B2B: Almost 70% of Spark investments are business-to-business (B2B) companies in a world where corporate VCs (CVC) are increasingly active eg Google has acquired more than 200 start-ups over the years.

     

    Taxation: Due to higher capital gains (CGT) and income tax (dividend taxation) regimes in Europe and particularly Ireland the ‘hurdle’ or exit/return expected of a young company must be commensurately higher to compensate institutional investors.

     

    Quality:  Start-up funding is, bluntly, more scarce in this part of the world and Spark probably turns down 9 out of every 10 investment opportunities. In theory, we are already investing in the top quality decile of opportunity.

     

    So, in Portfolio 3 the failure rate will be lower than previous examples (60%) and will also not amount to a ZERO return but include a recovery value of 20%. However, as demonstrated above, the key swing factor is the ‘winner’ category of investments. In Portfolio 3 we ‘diversify’ the outcomes of the surviving 10 companies with 6 actual exits. The following table outlines those outcomes across the portfolio:

     

    Portfolio 3:

     

    Clearly, diversification of outcomes and a higher number of more moderate exits does move the returns (IRR) dial. Any investor with a portfolio delivering 14.7% annual returns for an almost 4 X return on initial investment cost should be happy. Of course, these are merely estimates of the future anchored to historic data. We, like all forecasters, will get it wrong. However, it is reasonable to think a portfolio of mainly B2B assets with varying levels of maturity (along the start-up to private equity buy-out spectrum) operating in busy corporate VC activity sectors will achieve some exit success. You’ve read it here many times before… the future is private. But… there’s an additional Spark Private mantra to get to know – the process is portfolio. Private investors should build a sufficient opportunity set by holding multiple investments in a portfolio. As a small aside, this writer’s personal view is that exit valuations in the private asset world will surprise on the upside compared to even the multiples used in the portfolios above. Again, no promises!

    Writer’s Note: The above is just a basis for discussion and exploring the long-run drivers of portfolio returns. I would be more than happy to talk through our investment pipeline and deal-types with anyone interested in building a diversified portfolio of private assets over the next 2-3 years.

     

     

  • What Returns Can Investors Expect In A Private World?

    What Returns Can Investors Expect In A Private World?

    Well, I can’t promise you a future with a beachfront property in “Gaza Lago”. In fact, in the world of investing there are no guaranteed returns. As promised in our recent Private Portfolio Thoughts newsletter, I wanted to address expectations as to what long-run returns a private investor should be looking for in a portfolio of private assets.  First, let’s take a look at ‘industry standard’ expectations based on global historic data compiled by research house, Pitchbook. Of course, these are just averages and no doubt are ‘skewed’ by supra-normal returns for a small number of successful funds in each asset class. However, the table below gives an approximate guide to expectations over various time horizons and types of investment.

     

    The Spark focus is probably towards the top of this table summarising 5-year and 10-year returns for private equity (PE) and early-stage investing through venture capital (VC). However, if we strip out debt and real asset products the double-digit (%) performance picture is pretty similar across the board for private assets. The annual rates of return (IRR) implied by the performance of these private assets (in aggregate) are 13.4% over 5-years and 12.5% over 10-years.

    Let’s be more conservative and suggest that portfolios of private assets after 10 years SHOULD have grown in value at a rate of 12%. In real terms (and compounding those rates of return) that equates to an initial investment of €10,000 growing to €31,000 over 10 years. For context, a fund with publicly listed equities would be expected (by financial planners) to generate 7% returns per annum and thus turn €10,000 into €19,600. Of course, the extra return earned by the private asset portfolios is the compensation required by investors for the higher risk exposure(reduced liquidity, business failure) compared to the shares of large established businesses trading every day. These return numbers (based on history) can be described as “hurdle” rates which investors are expecting to match or beat in order to justify putting their capital at risk over long periods of time. So, let’s apply some hurdles to our world of very young companies (VC) and small businesses (private equity).

    We know that the industry standard in more mature private capital investment strategies is looking to turn €10,000 into something north of €30,000 over 10 years. We might describe this as an expectation to generate 3x your initial investment amount. Arguably, for higher risk investments in our earlier-stage world, investors could expect/demand an even higher return for their portfolios. If investors wanted 4x returns or €40,000 after 10 years that equates to a 15% annual return which is what private equity strategies have achieved(see table). So, that expectation is not unreasonable. But…. how realistic is it in a high risk portfolio of mainly early-stage business failure? We should touch on the key ‘push backs’ we get from investors who are wary of investing in start-up businesses or smaller private equity deals. The following are the most common perceived wisdoms….

     

    “80-90% of start-ups fail”

    “ Exits are more difficult as IPO markets for smaller companies have struggled”

    “I can just buy publicly listed equities and earn similar returns”

     

    There is an element of historic truth to all these statements but I’m going to use the most dangerous words in the investing lexicon by stating “this time it’s different”. First, the history of start-up failure should take into account the characteristics of older vintages of businesses. Let’s think about old economy businesses investing heavily in premises, equipment, overseas expansion facilities, logistics etc. These are, in most cases, “sunk costs” in capital-heavy businesses. Inevitably, if the business gets into trouble these ‘assets’ are not just worthless but can have an actual negative value due to ongoing liabilities/leases, maintenance costs, security, insurance etc. Now, think about many of today’s “asset light” businesses leveraging digital infrastructure and building value through the experience of the founders/team, the data gathered by the business and the development of relationships with clients and partners.

    These businesses don’t have the same level of sunk costs/liabilities (as old economy businesses) which can swamp the value of the operational “franchise”. Instead, the value within a business which might not be meeting growth targets can be recognised by a third party and lead to another form of exit which doesn’t involve liquidation. In the Spark portfolio we have seen a number of businesses acquired by third parties in the same sector in exchange for shares in the acquiring company. These shares clearly have a value and also change the traditional calculations around start-up failure.

    In the world of debt/credit one of the key financial terms/metrics is historic “recovery value”. In main street terms, this is the typical expected percentage of the debt which can be recovered when a business fails in a particular sector. You will see such sector recovery data displayed as a percentage of the debt ie 20 cents, 30 cents in the dollar. So, in the world of start-ups there is normally no debt and the equity in the business is a complete ZERO in the case of struggle or failure. But, now that’s not quite the case. If an acquiring business is offering a share exchange then the “recovery value” could by 20-50% of the original investment. And, the reason for ‘value’ being found in the business is the experience of the acquired team, the database and client relationships. This is happening on a far bigger scale elsewhere.

    Ever heard of the term ‘acqui-hiring”? This refers to a situation in which a company acquires another company primarily for its talented team or employees, rather than its products, technology, or other assets. In an acqui-hire, the acquiring company may not be interested in continuing the acquired company’s business or product, but rather wants to bring the talent into its own organization. Now, here’s another bit of jargon monoxide…. ever heard of CVC? Well, you know what venture capital (VC) does but there’s a subset of the VC ecosystem called Corporate Venture Capital(CVC). This form of VC funding is in reality larger corporations investing in smaller businesses whose franchises/technology could ultimately be relevant and value-creating for the parent company.

    So, you might think Sequoia, Index Ventures, Tiger Global and Andreessen Horowitz are the kings of VC investing. Now, think again. Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Nvidia are hugely active in the VC funding space. As an illustration, Nvidia deployed $1 billion in 50 VC funding rounds in 2024 alone. Furthermore, Google has acquired a whopping 222 start-ups over the years, and in 2023 the “Magnificent 7” tech stocks participated in 208 VC deals. So, the IPO market might not be as start-up friendly as in the past but Big Tech certainly is stepping up to the plate as a new and highly active exit event option.

    Of course, there will always be those investors who believe they can earn approximately similar returns to private asset strategies by choosing a selection of publicly listed companies. Yep, the likes of Domino’s Pizza, Paddy Power, Apple and Nvidia tick those boxes but there’s also an assumption investors will avoid the temptation of selling while on the multi-decade rocket ride. However, the more significant point is about business failure. Think it’s only start-ups?  Sixty years ago the average life-span of a company in the S&P 500 was over 50 years. Today, it’s less than 15 years! By 2027, almost 75% of companies who were quoted in the S&P 500 in 2016 will have disappeared (Source: McKinsey). Not for the first time, I’d suggest it’s worth a read of the excellent The Future is Faster Than You Think to grasp how fast business and technology leadership is changing.

    We can’t forecast the future. However, we should recognise that the world of start-ups today has changed dramatically. As a final illustration, start-up funding was traditionally populated by a majority of consumer-focused businesses – think retail, textiles, manufacturing, food, fashion etc.  The term “B2C” would be used to describe these business-to-consumer companies. Well, that’s changed too. Certainly, for Spark. A whopping 70% of funding deals completed by Spark have been business-to-business (B2B) opportunities. It should also be noted that our vetting process turns away approximately nine in every ten opportunities. Arguably, we are selecting the top decile of quality in the opportunity universe. No doubt we will get it wrong along the way, but this is still a robust risk starting point. And, it’s not the only starting point…

    The purpose of this article is to set the scene for a follow-up piece on how these structural shifts can impact the average private portfolio and future expectations using sample portfolios and outcomes. But always remember…. if I could truly forecast the future, “Gaza Lago” might personally have an entirely different meaning and location.

  • Banking On A Deal Frenzy

    Banking On A Deal Frenzy

    This hurts a bit. It kills me to potentially reward poor behaviour, but hey, I’m not nominated to be the Attorney General of the United States of America. The financial giants of Wall Street kept their heads down in the lead up to the US election. We didn’t hear too much commentary on the rule of law, inflationary tariffs or accelerating budget deficits. I mean…who needs property rights (law) or a functioning national balance sheet? Possibly, the infamous Leona Hemsley’s “little people” because they pay taxes, aka the price, in time. But, for now, there’s a very clear short-term calculation being made by Wall Street. A Trump administration determined to slash regulation and speed up commercial transactions is a godsend for bankers. Of course, Elon Musk, Tesla and Bitcoin are perceived as the early big ‘winners’ of a transactional incoming President. However, at a broader level the clear winner in the week since election is the enormous financial sector.

    US Financials are the best performing sector in the markets over the last week (+1.5%) while tech, telecoms, healthcare and materials all have actually booked negative returns for investors(Source: Finviz). That big picture split is interesting and highlights the very essence of what financials are about. It’s all about deals. More deals, more commissions, more fees, more revenues, more bonuses. What deals you ask? Let’s start with the biggies like massive M&A deals. In recent years, the broligarchs have been frustrated by FTC Commissioner, Lina Khan, who has blocked more than 30 corporate mergers/acquisitions on grounds of reduced competition. High-profile deals attracting government(FTC) scrutiny included Microsoft/Activision and Kroger/Albertsons. Only this week, the parent companies of luxury brands Coach and Michael Kors abandoned their merger due to FTC competition-based objections. No deal, no fees. Hence, a more lenient transaction-friendly FTC under Trump is expected to increase deal flow. And, not just in M&A.

    How do I put this delicately? Well, if the incoming Attorney General is already under investigation by his House of Representatives colleagues for sex trafficking, let’s just say the whole area of compliance could be significantly relaxed. We can expect more financial products to be launched and faster in a more relaxed regulatory environment. One area already due to increase activity levels is the IPO sector. Interestingly, Sweden’s Klarna has just announced its plans to list publicly (IPO). However, despite its Swedish home, Klarna is going to list in the US, not Europe. Oh, and Klarna is a financial company. It’s also a great comeback story – the buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) platform and its 85 million customers is heading for a $20 billion valuation. That’s a tripling of value since the fintech ‘winter’ of 2022. Note fintech is not the only survivor of the investor ‘winter’ of 2022…

    The cryptocurrency universe has already been perceived as a Trump regulatory relaxation winner. Bitcoin has rocketed to all-time-highs of $93,000 with an individual asset value of $1.7 trillion exceeding that of Facebook/Meta. The wider cryptocurrency ecosystem has achieved a market value of $3.2 trillion but the bigger story is possibly stablecoins (cryptocurrencies backed by liquid financial assets ). Again, I’d highlight ‘transactions’ as the opportunity for financial services platforms. Stablecoins were used in $8.5 trillion of transactions in the second quarter of this year. That’s more than double Visa’s transaction volume of $3.9 trillion. It also provides a pretty good clue as to why Stripe acquired stablecoin platform, Bridge, for $1.1 billion.

    For the avoidance of doubt, more transactions and deals is an overall positive. More exits, more funding, more deals… the circle of start-up life. At Spark we know more deals, exits and IPOs eventually feeds into the smaller regions of financial markets. We also know there’s a hefty €150 billion sitting in Irish bank accounts earning almost zero returns. It’s not just an Irish phenomenon. There is currently a record $7 trillion of cash sitting in US money-market funds. That’s not a huge surprise when one can earn 4-5% interest in these US deposit accounts for relatively minimal risk. However, watch out for lower US interest rates and increased mega deal headlines in the coming months. Then watch that cash move. And, not just in the USA.

    The EU economy is 99% driven by 26 million private small and medium sized businesses (SME) who account for €5.4 trillion of economic activity. The headlines will almost exclusively focus on the impact of a Trump regime on US multinationals, corporation tax, homeshoring etc. Rather like the trading evidence in markets of the past week, probably not much will really change for the “broligarchs” and the big tech multinationals. However, the markets are telling you financial services will enjoy greater deal activity which will feed through the global funding ecosystem. Indeed, right now there’s an all-time-high number of investment campaigns on the Spark platform (8) with interesting additional private asset/deal opportunities in the 2025 pipeline. We’ve written it before; the future is private.

    So, it seems like a good time to launch Spark Private, the personalised service to grow your private asset portfolio. More details on that next week, after you’ve finished gasping at AG Gaetz.

  • A Quick Guide For Private Investors In Start-Ups

    A Quick Guide For Private Investors In Start-Ups

    One of our portfolio companies ceased operating this week. Lesson learned? Yes. Would we use the same vetting process again? Yes. And, no, Einstein’s definition of insanity is not in play here. Let’s be very clear that mistakes will continue to be made. We just can’t forecast the future. In fact, human beings are not particularly good at the forecasting thing. However, we can control the controllables,  and one of the critical things for a private investor to control is one’s investment process. Call it a check list. Then, know that we probably turn down 10 opportunities for every one we offer on the Spark platform. So here’s a quick guide as to how we compile a score card for companies seeking new investment capital. Note we will expand on some areas in later articles but, for now, this could be an outline framework used by any wannabe early-stage investor….

     

    Founders: This is probably the most fundamental factor in any company assessment. The calibre of the founders is critical to our confidence that the key people in a startup have the energy, resilience, expertise, discipline and ‘market-listening’ gene to drive a project or business to success.

     

    Solution: A laser-like focus on solving a consumer or business problem which can be clearly defined should underpin any analysis of a company’s product or service.

     

    Validation: Revenues generated by the product or service are the ultimate validation. Note business customers are ‘stickier’ than main street consumers so it is not surprising that business-to-business (B2B) investments tend to attract more investment. Other elements of validation like awards, patents or industry thought-leader financial backers can also add weight to the pitch.

     

    Market Opportunity: Huge global market spend numbers sound good but also attract plenty of competing products and services, and imply a danger subsequent funding rounds shift to the perceived ‘winners’. A niche focus on a particular segment of the market can be an easier ‘sell’ and gain better traction with both prospective customers and investors.

     

    Communication: We just mentioned customers and investors together. For good reason. Founders and startups must be on top of their communications and messaging. A poorly worded investment pitch should raise investor concerns about the primary challenge – forget funding, what about founders’ abilities to win over prospective customers?

     

    Endorsement: Many pitches feature impressive testimonials or endorsements. However, there is a higher impact endorsement – money. Typically, in a funding round we would expect founders to bring some financial/investment endorsement to the table. Think about it – if the founders can’t ‘sell’ their business to ‘warm’ friends, family or commercial counterparties, it’s going to be a lot harder to convince ‘cold’ investors to back a project.

     

    Financials: Of course, not everyone is an accounting wizard. However, returning to our comment about ‘forecasting the future’, whatever projections are put in a business plan are most definitely going to be ‘wrong’. The thing to control is unsubstantiated growth trajectories or ‘hockey stick’ forecasts. Initial projections should show an understanding that a slower grind in the early years is a better (and more credible) base case.

     

    Business Model: Company’s when first entering a market will try out different pricing strategies but there’s a bigger strategic consideration than price. The payment framework for the customer is critical: monthly/annual subscription, up front/service models, wholesale, distribution partnerships etc. Investors should be clear as to how an investee company is going to be paid.

     

    Valuation: This is another area/assessment which is going to end up being completely wrong. However, a base valuation can be derived from the projected revenues/profits in the next two forecast years (and previous 12 months if any). Also, where it is very early days with minimal revenues, a good way to think about a business is to calculate how much would it cost to build the product/company/service today. Monies invested in a company to date are a good basis for valuation. And watch out for technology overspend (so so common) and marketing waste (lots of Google ads algorithm sob stories). On the other hand, proprietary databases built in a niche area can support a business valuation.

     

    Last Mile: Very often investors see great products or services and wonder why the business ultimately does not succeed. This writer increasingly believes ‘the last mile’, aka commercial intensity/engagement, is where analytical frameworks need to beef up risk metrics. Clearly, ‘build it and they will come’ is not a business strategy in today’s world. Scaling up customer bases and revenues is a real challenge for early stage companies. Hence, investors should be very clear about what the marketing/distribution/partner strategy is for a start up business. In many ways, fuzziness on this question makes estimates on the size of a market opportunity (with juicy TAM and SAM numbers) completely irrelevant. A roadmap with milestones, skills/talent build, later funding series, and customer mix evolution should be sufficiently clear for investors to understand the plan and the building blocks required to scale.

     

    Exit: Healthy deal activity for smaller businesses, a sector’s track record of consolidation, cash-rich global players as serial acquirors, the network of the founders etc all help paint an exit picture for an investor. For investors, make sure there is plenty of colour in the answer.

     

    The above is not an exhaustive list but captures the main pillars in our analytical framework, and could become a regular check list for a private investor. Of course, each section features mere highlights and headlines but at the same time this should not be ‘rocket science’. Many of the questions you, the investor, want answered need to be answered by customers and partners too. And, we know clear communication is critical to customer success. So, understand the fundamentals of a business and that’s a decent start to building a robust investment score-card. That’s all you can control. Or as ‘Cousin’ Greg in Succession might say… you don’t need to know everything, just the key business/relationship levers which matter.

  • Another Heroic Age Begins…..

    Another Heroic Age Begins…..

    I’m nervous. My trip to the Park Hotel Kenmare this week isn’t quite in the league of those heroic voyages chronicled in ancient Greek mythology, but the dress code request on the invite pumped the pulse rate for a moment. Just a moment. The invitation to recreate the year of the hotel’s opening in 1897 in a gathering of mostly creative types (after momentary panic) seemed like an opportune way to ditch my far-from-hip personal wardrobe and embrace Victorian disguise. Party on, but still I’m nervous. I have this nagging feeling that the years 1897 and 2024 might have more in common than we’d like to imagine. Indeed, Mark Twain would say the years and risks are rhyming.

    The Thirty Days War of 1897 between Greece and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) was hardly a century, or even decade, defining event whereas the current war in Ukraine is generationally significant for Europe. Furthermore, the first border-to-border direct attack by Iran on Israel in the past week could, left to escalate unchecked, threaten the planet with warfare of global dimensions. Neither of the current conflicts will necessarily snowball into multi-country warfare, but 1897 starkly demonstrated how military alliances fracturing under pressure in local skirmishes can lead to tragic global outcomes.

    Just before the Greco-Turkish War broke out on the mainland in 1897, there was an intervention made by The International Squadron, a naval flotilla formed by the ‘Great Powers’ of Europe (UK, France, Italy, Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany) to address a rebellion by native Greeks on the island of Crete against rule by the Ottoman Empire. Apart from being a precursor to war on the mainland, the Cretan intervention ultimately led to strategic disagreement followed by Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire withdrawing from the International Squadron. Only seventeen years later the same Balkan region erupted, and those two nations formed the Central Powers alliance with Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire to fight the Allied Powers in World War I. So, fast forward to today and it’s not difficult to spot the strains in geopolitical alliances as they confront the following crises:

     

    Ukraine-Russia: European members of NATO bordering Russia are terrified by Ukrainian funding (frozen) being used as a partisan political chess piece in an increasingly dysfunctional US Congress. How long before Poland asks for, or sources, its own nuclear deterrent against Russian aggression….?

    Israel-Iran: Clearly, hundreds of missiles launched directly against Israel by Iran is a worrying first-time development in the traumatic history of the Middle-East. However, the co-ordinated defence of Israeli and neighbouring airspace by a coalition of US, UK, Jordanian, UAE, Saudi and Israeli forces could be considered a relatively surprising show of unity between Allied and Arab nations. Less encouraging is the horror of Gaza, and European countries (and the UN) looking for the US to pressure Israel’s leadership into a more humane approach.

    China-Taiwan: The potential collapse of munitions-starved Ukraine is not just terrifying eastern European nations. The perception of ‘abandonment’ of Ukraine by the US has massive European and NATO implications, but will also reverberate through Asia-Pacific island nations watching China’s moves on Taiwan. It is no surprise to see high profile visits from the leaders of Japan and the Philippines to Washington in recent weeks. However, the fate of Ukraine will be the true indicator of the strength of this trilateral alliance. And, China will be watching closely.

     

    Arguably, the timing-fuse for the potential explosion of any of the above crises is going to be a lot shorter than 1897’s seventeen year WW I burn. So, do we panic or seek inspiration? Geopolitical leadership, frankly, is lacking courage or heroes right now. However, dig deeper into the history of 1897 and that year’s other claim to historical significance was its status as the beginning of the last “Heroic Age” and lasted until 1922. This 25-year period saw 17 pioneering Antarctic expeditions launched from 10 different countries, but the Antarctic was not the only study subject enhanced by these expeditions.

    The methods of expedition commanders like Robert Scott, Roald Amundsen and Ernest Shackleton have been the subject of many academic studies and have provided a uniquely pure window into different leadership approaches to life or death decisions under extreme conditions while cut off from the outside world. Geopolitical anxiety aside, I am increasingly optimistic that the stars are aligning for another Heroic Age. So, who are today’s heroes and where is the 2024 unexplored equivalent of the Antarctic? More importantly, can these exploits alter the geopolitical direction of travel?  I have three pioneering hopes.

    Space Exploration: The brilliant George Mason University economist, Tyler Cowen, asserted more than 10 years ago that the US economy had been in a long productivity stall since the early 1970s. He referred to it as The Great Stagnation and this appears to have coincided with the suspension of genuine space exploration in the form of manned lunar landings since 1972. Undoubtedly, the space race of the 1960s accelerated many technological developments so I’m wondering will the renewal of manned space voyages to the moon (Artemis II) and Mars trigger global progress in remote services and activities. Consultancy group, McKinsey, have estimated the space economy will be worth $1.8 trillion by 2035. So, that’s almost like finding another Brazil with lots of new investment capital driving innovation. Think tele-health, agriculture, communications etc. Space exploration also remains a beacon of hope for collaborative endeavour – see the International Space Station (ISS) as a continuing example of cooperation between Japan , USA, Russia, Canada and the European Space Agency.

    Artificial Intelligence (AI): We have written many times about the urgent need to defend The Truth in a digital world overwhelmed by misinformation and bad actors at a corporate and sovereign level. So, it might seem strange that Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be part of the solution. A quick glance at any media headlines would suggest AI will be in the vanguard of misinformation rather than authenticity. However, I am struck in my day-to-day investment role by the number of recent AI applications which focus on one area and also could be a very profound instrument in the discovery of truth. The latest AI focus is video. We know Gen AI tools like Chat GPT or Gemini can be used to deliver super-quick summaries of large volumes of text from market analyst research to autobiographies to business plans. But, now hours of video can be analysed and checked in minutes, even seconds. So, imagine a future screen broadcast which is actually two screens, and the second screen is not a betting or chat platform. The broadcast could be Liz Truss, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin in full delusion mode and the second AI screen could fact check (or just show previous contradictory video footage of same speaker) and alert viewers to misinformation. My hope is that real time credibility checks could be incredibly powerful in exposing populist charlatans and assisting truth discovery.

    Healthcare: Every week we read about new therapeutic discoveries using gene editing (CRSPRS), cell therapies (CAR-T), mRNA vaccine platforms, neural implants(Neuralink) or even drug manufacturing in space using micro-gravity(Varda). Healthcare remains a challenge for all governments and the recent memory of the Covid-19 pandemic should be an inspiration for further research co-operation. Recent news headlines on WHO worries about H5N1 bird flu mutations will likely focus minds and provide a potent reminder that viruses don’t stop at disputed historical borders. Indeed, a government closer to home looks like it will lose power despite delivering best-on-planet economic performance. Why? Ireland’s government coalition didn’t do enough on the health (hospitals) and safety (homes) of its citizens. You would have thought focus groups and polling research might have picked up on that genetic human instinct……to live. Politics, eh.

    So, maybe nothing much has changed since those courageous expeditions trudged across an unforgiving continent all those years ago. As a species, we are probably still driven by the same three things: discovery of new worlds, the truth, and survival. Clearly, success in these pursuits can be shared and, in turn, bring humanity closer together. So, I’m not sure this vision of our future requires heroic optimism, but we could definitely do with some leadership. And…. I’m sure the ghost of Tom Crean would have some wise Kerry thoughts this weekend on where it can all go wrong.

    P.S. The dressing up worked out, the creative crew were fantastic company, and the hotel is wow….!

     

  • Take Your Pension Or Portfolio To Another Level

    Take Your Pension Or Portfolio To Another Level

    Fizzle sticks! There goes another billion dollar ‘unicorn’ I didn’t back. Sound familiar? This week’s news that Ireland’s Cubic Telecom has entered the ‘unicorn’ club thanks to a €473 million investment from Japan’s Softbank should focus financial planning minds. In particular, we should focus on two things very familiar to readers of these pages. Firstly, speed. The business world is moving faster and faster. Secondly, technologies are rapidly merging and compounding value.

    Just over a year ago, Cubic Telecom was reporting annual sales(Sept 2022) of circa €30 million with its connectivity software installed in 10 million vehicles. Yep, €30 million not €300 million. So, what prompted Softbank to enter into discussions for a 51% stake purchase on a valuation multiple of 31x the previous year’s revenues? One could hazard a guess that speed of growth was one consideration, given installations of its software have ramped up to 450,000 vehicles per month and are expected to go ‘exponential’. Also, one suspects the compounding of a number of technologies is beginning to drive traction. Cubic is at the fortunate intersection of the Internet of Things(IoT), 5G connectivity, electric/battery powered vehicles (EVs), cloud computing and Artificial Intelligence(AI). We need to start thinking about multiple technologies compounding at speed rather than focusing on one technology advance, and it’s not just Ireland illustrating these two themes.

    All the gloomy headlines this year have put us all in a strange place. And, awkwardly so for financial advisors who possibly went into ‘bunker’ mode. I have been asked to look at 3 different pensions in the last week where returns to date were hovering at just over 3%. That’s actually less than you’d earn on risk-free US Treasuries currently. However, the killer data point is that the tech-heavy index, the Nasdaq 100, is up 48% year-to-date. Oh, and despite all those war headlines and oil worries from Russia/Ukraine and the Middle-East, the energy sector is DOWN year-to-date. Even Germany which is staggering into recession boasts a stock-market (DAX) hitting all-time highs and returning 18% gains this year. Note, the DAX is definitely NOT filled with tech names. However, the Nasdaq is telling us lots of technology from energy storage(Tesla) to cloud(Microsoft) to AI(Google) are emerging at the same time. Just yesterday, Google showed us a new AI bot, Gemini, and its market value jumped by $85 billion over the day. That’s the equivalent of Citibank’s market capitalization after 211 years in existence. Just one day. It feels like wealth creation cycles are shrinking.

    Latest reports suggest the AI team at French start-up, Mistral, are raising funds again. Recall that this crew of AI gurus raised over $100 million 6 months ago with no product, no business or revenues. Just a PowerPoint presentation deck. Now the team have a product (large language model(LLM) for Generative AI) and want to raise more than $300 million. The current valuation level for Mistral is ….. reported to be over $2 billion. Six months. However, before we go all dollars dreamy, note that the hard yards and years are still the norm. For example, Cubic Telecom started up back in 2005. At a higher level, consider it took Microsoft 44 years to hit the trillion dollar market value mark, Apple 42 years, Amazon 24 years and Google 21 years. Keep those tech and time thoughts and let’s move to the other end of the business life spectrum.

    We have already referenced pensions, but for many investors these are vehicles for a variety of funds investing in a mix of blue chip publicly listed company shares and their debt(bonds), government bonds, possibly some real estate and a bit of cash. Given the fast-moving tech world we live in, it is increasingly apparent that investors’ pensions or savings portfolios should allocate a small portion of monies(5-10%) to early-stage companies. Pensions are not the ideal vehicle(for the majority of people) for these investments, but the good news is that the government provides incentives with a similarly attractive taxation impact.

    For years, starting with BES schemes and then evolving into the current EIIS funding initiatives, government has encouraged private investor capital to support employment and growth for early-stage companies by offering tax rebates against income generated in the year of investment(s). That rate of rebate has been a standard 40% but is due to change. More on that later but first, let’s briefly explain the mechanics of EIIS.

    If a company is eligible for EIIS investment it will typically be introduced to private investors in three ways. Note, not all companies qualify for EIIS treatment eg. financial trading businesses are not eligible. Companies which do qualify, offer shares through the following:

     

    • Direct Investment: The investee company offers its shares directly to investors. These direct investment opportunities are typically offered to small groups of investors known to the company’s founders or its financial advisors, and not made public.

     

    • EIIS Funds: These funds are managed by financial intermediaries/brokers and request lump sums up front from private investors. The capital raised is then deployed across EIIS investment opportunities. The up-front sums can be significant(> €10,000) and the managers will charge annual fees.

     

    • CrowdFunding Platforms: A platform like Spark (or Seedrs or Crowdcube in UK) will give thousands of signed-up investors access to 12-15 fundraising campaigns by EIIS qualifying companies each year. The business model of these platforms is different to a fund. The investors do not pay any up-front lump sums or fees. Investors can invest as little as €250 in each EIIS investment with NO commissions, and NO management fees. Instead, Spark and other platforms only charge the companies a fee(and only if successful). One other variation on this is Angel Networks, or syndicates, which invest as opportunities arise. However, the entry level investment size (€5,000 – €10,000) and lead times are not for everyone.

     

    So, after paying for your shares, those shares will sit in a broker account, or a fund, or in a nominee account(independent of platform). The company will then apply for EIIS certification from the Revenue. On receipt of this notification, investors will get a certification confirming same which can be filed with the Revenue to offset taxes paid in that year.

    What sort of people could this interest? The income which qualifies for tax rebates includes employment income, rental income, dividends and ARF distributions. The amount of income which can avail of EIIS has been increased from €250,000 to €500,000 in a single year under new rules to come into effect in January 2024. Also, note the investment must be for a minimum of 4 years. The new rules in the Finance Bill also have broken the standard 40% rebate rate into different bands which we have summarised in a previous article as follows:

     

    • 50% for businesses that ‘have not operated in any market’;
    • 35% for a business in its first EIIS fundraise within 7 years of its first sale;
    • 20% for a business in its second or subsequent EIIS fundraise;
    • 20% for a business expanding into new markets or regions; and
    • 30% for investments via a ‘Qualifying Investment Fund’, of which there is only one in Ireland.

     

    Quite apart from introducing potential confusion, the ‘core’ or standard EIIS rebate of an equity investment will now be reduced from 40% to 35%. On a more positive note, the 50% relief for early-stage pre-operating companies could be very interesting for Ireland and Irish investors. It won’t have escaped your attention that the trillion dollar tech club is entirely US based. That can be attributed to deeper capital markets and Silicon Valley tech leadership but could Ireland be a leader now? I’m thinking three big areas where the Irish ecosystem is quietly building real scale and a pipeline of early-stage opportunities. Here we go:

    Medical Technology/Bio-pharma: 14 of the 15 biggest MedTech players have significant operations including critical R&D functions in Ireland. Also, 12 of the biggest global pharma players are there too. That ecosystem is beginning to deliver a fly-wheel effect of training, management, success, entrepreneurial juices and world-class innovation.

    Cleantech: Irish engineering and construction companies are already leveraging their experience of executing huge hi-spec projects for tech giants like Microsoft and Intel, and global life sciences companies. These Irish companies are now key players in the build-out of EV battery gigafactories, data centres, clean energy manufacturing plants, pharmaceutical plants and chip manufacturing facilities all over the world. It is highly likely this hi-tech project expertise will generate new innovations and young companies to drive the cleantech revolution.

    Artificial Intelligence(AI): The creator economy is a $250 billion monster with all the major players from Google to LinkedIn to Meta/Facebook positioning their European HQs in Ireland. It is clear the creator economy is in the cross-hairs of AI and one can expect the Silicon Docks of Dublin to spin out a number of AI innovations. In fact, Spark will be bringing an exciting AI play to investors very soon.

     

    Furthermore, or a bit further afield, we should note interesting developments in Europe. Spark as a newly regulated entity with EU ‘passport’ will be looking at potential investment opportunities and encouraged by the latest data from Atomico’s “State of European Tech 2023” report:

     

    • Investment levels in European tech has reached $45 billion which is up 18% on 2020. Every other region is down over the same period.

     

    • Europe’s talent pool has grown from 750,000 to 2.3 million in the last 5 years. And, in 2023 Europe was a net beneficiary of people moving from the US to Europe. How Trumpy….

     

    • Europe now has 4,000 growth stage tech companies.

     

    • Europe (not just Mistral) can compete in AI globally. In fact, Europe has more resident AI talent than the US (120k vs 112k).

     

    There will be early stage investment opportunities in a faster world. And, frankly, waiting for IPOs could be a long way off. Thanks to huge private investment pools, companies like Stripe, Shein and OpenAI can stay private for longer, or forever. In the US alone, 70% of early stage/VC funding comes from pension funds and educational endowments. Europe has a bit of catching up to do; only 20% of funding comes from institutional sources. But….. on a contrarian view, this presents an opportunity for European and Irish private/individual capital to step into the gap and seize opportunities that typically might have gone straight to institutional/professional players. So, instead of fizzle sticks maybe think about sticking some funds into one of the EIIS access vehicles referenced above. As always, we recommend a portfolio-building approach, spreading your risk in smaller amounts across 8-10 investments per year. See the table below as a quick summary of what might work for you:

     

     

    Finally, if it’s speed and technology you’re looking for, then a 3-minute sign up process on the Spark platform is a pretty slick start to your early-stage investing journey.

     

  • Government NOT Making It EIISy For Startups?

    Government NOT Making It EIISy For Startups?

    In the investment world of benchmarks and relative performance, portfolio managers will tell you every year is a tough year. World going thrillingly gang-busters? Gotta keep pace. Risk, slowdown and volatility? Don’t blow up, survive. Arguably, for startup businesses and founders dependent on external funding support there is a similar dynamic in play.

    In the giddy years, if your investment story isn’t ‘shiny’ enough you can be starved of capital which is diverted to other sectors. Then, in tougher more cautious funding environments like the last 12 months, you’re possibly juggling slower sales cycles and slower funding rounds and decisions. Worse still, no decisions. Uncertainty is a decision and business killer. And, we have no shortage of uncertainties fuelled by inflation, rocketing interest rates and geopolitical powder kegs in Ukraine and the Middle East. Now, smaller businesses and investors must deal with a fresh uncertainty coming from perhaps a surprising source, our own government.

    The last US President to close out a global geopolitical proxy war was Ronald Reagan but he’s also famous for his disdain of government over-reach. In a 1986 press conference he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Arguably, these words might resonate with businesses and investors currently wrangling with the latest Finance Bill and its changes to EIIS rules for equity investors and investee companies. Firstly, an easy-to-understand flat rate of 40% income tax rebates for Irish resident investors in qualifying Irish startup businesses has been chopped up into 5 different bands. The different bands, to come into effect on January 1st 2024, are as follows:

     

    • 50% for businesses that ‘have not operated in any market’;
    • 35% for a business in its first EIIS fundraise within 7 years of its first sale;
    • 20% for a business in its second or subsequent EIIS fundraise;
    • 20% for a business expanding into new markets or regions; and
    • 30% for investments via a ‘Qualifying Investment Fund’, of which there is only one in Ireland.

     

    Quite apart from introducing potential confusion, the ‘core’ or standard EIIS rebate of an equity investment will now be reduced from 40% to 35%. Clearly, this reduces the incentive to invest rather than increases the incentive with what could be considered particularly poor timing. We would highlight three key pre-existing factors as challenges for businesses seeking investment capital:

     

    • Higher interest rates: Remember our reference to capital chasing the “shiny” things? Well, interest rates rocketing to 5% are forcing all asset classes to increase their attractiveness by offering better returns. Think deposit rates, mortgage bonds, corporate bonds and other lower risk options to earn returns. They are all upping incentives/yields while the government is seeking to make startup investment less “shiny” or easy.

     

    • Financial Conditions: The Goldman Sachs research team tracks the broader financial climate and looks at lending patterns, terms, spreads, credit trading etc Its view on euro-area financial conditions is that they haven’t been this tight since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008-2009. This means businesses must search harder for investment, endure tougher terms and possibly find new banking channels unless your choice is….

     

    • Irish Banks: A senior Dublin legal eagle only recently told me that the banks are effectively ‘not open’ for any additional risk on their books before year end. True or not, the banking choices for SMEs are extremely limited as Nat West(Ulster) and KBC have pulled up sticks in Ireland and followed Rabobank and Danske Bank into retreat to their higher margin core markets.

     

     

    The recent memories of Covid-19 and the pitiful take-up of the government’s Credit Guarantee Scheme (just 12% of funds used by April 2021) hint at a limited banking system which isn’t massively interested in the SME sector. As a reminder, the government was guaranteeing 80% of the €2 billion in loans under this Credit Guarantee Scheme but it seems even a 20% share of the risk was too much for the Irish banks. But, also be mindful that 99% of active enterprises in the state are SMEs and account for 70% of employment. Of course, there are other institutional sources of capital.

    In the US 70% of venture capital comes from pension funds and educational endowments. In Europe, you’d be lucky if that number even reached 20%. So, despite the fabulous efforts of Ireland’s state funding agency, Enterprise Ireland, the role of private investors is critical in supporting early stage businesses. It is true that European government agencies and EU institutions(eg Horizon 2020, EIC) play a significant part and these latest EIIS changes in the Finance Bill are part of a broader harmonization of state aid. However, harmony works both ways.

    Due to limited competition and regulatory constraints, smaller Irish businesses are experiencing a much more difficult banking and funding environment than their European peers. In those circumstances, one would hope that European and Irish policy makers were encouraging private capital to fill the institutional and bank funding holes. Complicating simple tax treatments is not a good start and, to add to decision paralysis, there is a critical question outstanding in the new EIIS rules.

    The 50% rate applied to investments made in companies “not operating in any market” is leaving many people, both founders and investors, in the startup world scratching their heads. For us, we need to clarify the “not operating” phrase. Does this mean companies not generating revenues yet or is this demarcation geared towards companies in earlier risk stages like R&D, pre-API-type development phases? These are the questions which, left unanswered, will delay business funding and investment. Fatally, in some cases.

    Now, to finish on a more upbeat note. This writer, as a long-time analyst of investments and their returns, has always been wary of treating tax rebates as a means of re-setting your starting point. In other words, if EIIS of 40% is applied, your €1,000 investment cost only €600 post your tax rebate. In my world of valuations and RETURNS the more critical point was that your investment value remained €1,000. So, in a 35% EIIS rebate world the return of your €1,000 in subsequent exit value would amount to just shy of a 54% return. If that €1,000 becomes €2,000 that’s a greater than 3x return, irrespective of whether you started with a €600 or €650 cost. That broad quantum of outcome should still keep investors very interested in startup investing. However, as we hit GFC levels of funding tightness, the government may not be able to magic up more banks but it could certainly incentivise more private investors to support the 99%. Kinda like what governments used to say they do.